The “It’s the union above all else” pitch began Wednesday when Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor announced the Obama endorsement. He praised all the candidates but made it clear that his members value union solidarity above all.

MyDD diarist Izaradar, who belongs to a union, says union endorsements are more problematic in caucus than primary states:

What's the big deal, you might ask? The union leadership can't force a member to honor the endorsement of Senator Obama. If a member wants to vote for John Edwards, or Senator Clinton, they're free to do so. This is a democracy, right? The secret ballot protects our identity and our choice. Well, that's a problem.

This is an open caucus. Union members will be standing in the same room with other union members. Or maybe even their shop steward. Or their foreman. Or possibly even a union official. Everyone will know which candidate you're backing. And if you're a member of Culinary Workers Local 226, and you don't caucus for Senator Obama??? That could make for a long shift on Monday.

Some analysts wonder if the caucus process will discourage some workers from voting their consciences. Unlike a secret-ballot election, caucus participants have to stand up and proclaim support for their candidate – even if it's in front of their co-workers or supervisors.

“We think in the end our members will act like a union,” said Pilar Weiss, the Culinary Workers political director. Damore speculated that union workers who attend caucuses in their neighborhood precincts would feel more comfortable voting for someone other than Obama than those who go to the at-large caucuses in the casinos.

“Those are going to be union-dominated sites, and if there is going to be intimidation to toe the union line, that's where it's going to be,” he said.

it is refreshing to at least see some back and forth about the issues instead of just defending Obama at all costs which is the point of view of so many progressive web sites. I feel like my old liberal party has been hijacked. Thanks BTD for at least showing both sides. I am a Edwards and then a Hillary supporter. This is important to me because of health care issues primarily. Obamas positions are too centrist for me.

it does get a tad silly with the in-fighting - but I think the coutry will force real conversation about issues now . People are really getting frightened about the economy. I keep seeingf more layoffs announced in the press.

Have no idea whether the union pressures workers to vote for Obama or not. (The union has little leverage on individuals except for particular individuals at your work place.) However, it seems to me that the union wants a place at the Obama presidential table. By helping Obama after New Hampshire, the union showed its commitment. I am not sure that the vote itself will change much.

She claimed he had co-sponsored a similar bill in May that labeled the Revolutionary Guard as as terrorist organization. Wow, was that ever a flat out...uh...untruth. I looked pretty stupid. It was the first time I had visited her sight. And the last.

Also, I shouldn't write anything after 3 am. I wouldn't have made the same mistake during normal hours.

He did not. He co-sponsored an amendment to a Senate bill, along with many others. But the Revolutionary Guard part has taken out at that point. The bill she was referring to was a House bill. She blurred the lines and irresponsibly so.

Trust me, I was raked over the coals by people heavily armed with the facts. It was not defensible.

After the Sun worked the story for two hours, this much is clear: What exactly happened this afternoon at Paris Las Vegas depends on whom you talk to. To hear Clinton's campaign and her supporters tell it, the union intimidated a member into caucusing for Obama, demanding that she sign a pledge card -- or face exile from the caucus.

To hear the alleged victim tell it, it was much more of a misunderstanding.

But, I've seen it too often where one blogger posts something like Marsh's 'story', and then 2-3 other bloggers who share that blogger's opinion/bias start circulating the story and cross-linking to each other.

Pretty soon, there's 'buzz' about all kinds of awful things going on instead of one anonymous source making unverifiable claims about one incident.

that quoting Taylor Marsh is a big problem. The concern raised is certainly valid - but what we don't know is if the "union" that's pressuring in this case is truly THE union - or if it's one person within the union pressing their views on another. The latter is still bad of course, but means something different.

I stopped going to Taylor Marsh when she posted "What happens if Mr. Hope meets Mr. Experience" referring to Obama and McCain. She went on to ask what would happen if Obama was the nominee and "A bomb went off somewhere". Basically, she became a Fox News fear monger to me when I saw that post. Moreover, I think an Obama v McCain matchup would be good for the country since I think they are the best positioned to represent their sides respective views.

On a separate note, but part of a larger conversation posted, I am a big Obama supporter but visiting this site has made me think much more about why I support Obama, and why I believe in his message. It has also made me more open to Hillary and Edwards and dislike them significantly less. Any medium that can make us sit back, think, and listen to other points of view is all good, and for that I thank Jeralyn and BTD.

Caucuses are exploitable by a lot of bad actors, not just unions. And the reason of course is the non secret ballot.

Non-secret ballots are also a problem for:

Absentee ballots, where the union or employer can insist you bring your ballot and vote in front of the union leader or employer.

Many paper trail mechanisms that provide you a receipt and proof of your vote that you can take home. This is why the better electronic voting with paper trail mechanisms just print out a human readable optical scanned ballot so you can check your vote, ensure your ballot is printed correctly, and drop it in.

But the non-secret ballot leads to union pressure has had me puzzled as to why we think that union votes should be non-secret.

I am for unions, but I don't understand why non-secret ballots during union votes are anything we should support.

I've had very mixed feelings about the current lawsuit over the at-large districts. I'm all for permitting as many folks as possible, including casino workers to participate, so to that extent I like the at-large districts. I'm less enthused about the apparent preferential treatment the casino workers were getting, however, and I'm sympathetic to non-casino workers being upset about that.

The political nature of the suit only bothers me a little bit because if folks are being treated unfairly in an election, then that should be remedied, IMO, regardless of the reasons behind the lawsuit. Also, politicians have been fighting over who votes and how - almost always based on whether it helps or hurts them - forever.

Plus, I'm more understanding of the political motivation in the sense that I might not care as much if my vote counts less than the casino employees if I think we're all voting for the same person. If I learn they are likely to support a different candidate, I'm likely to care a whole lot more about their preferential treatment. In theory we should all, of course, want everyone to participate and for everything to be fair and equal, but as a practical matter we usually only complain if we think it matters to the outcome because, well, we have better things to do.

As for the union intimidation issue, I hate caucuses. Said that before Iowa because of the disenfranchisement of folks who can't attend and because of the lack of a secret ballot. What I hadn't considered about the at-large districts is the further complication of caucusing with people you work with. I sure wouldn't want to do that. I have less of a problem caucusing with my neighbors than co-workers and bosses. And that's not even taking into consideration the union endorsement issue.

This entire thing sucks. The only thing that would fix it, IMO, is a primary. Personally, I'm now hoping this Nevada caucus will be a complete cluster and will force folks to seriously reconsider the caucus system. The entire thing is ripe for misuse and abuse.